Simple overcalls.

[whereagles]

I disagree. Far worse (and just as likely) is that the auction proceeds (1C)-Dbl-(3C)-4S-(pass)-??. You would probably still bid 5D, but this auction is completely out of control.

Out of control it is not. I still have a clear 5D bid.

[Fluffy]

Here is another example that happened yesterday on a suposed to be high level season:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skqjxxxxhdaqjxcax&w=sha106xxdk10xxckjxx&e=s10xxhjxdxxcq10xxxx&s=sa9xhkq987xdxxxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

On 6 of the 9 tables the bidding started 1♥ X ps ps.

Wich scores normally +500, not a good shot when 2210 is avaible on a ♥ lead.

 

Luckilly for those doublers only 2 of the openers stayed in 1♥ wich such suit, and scaped to a minor, wich led to some game and slam scores at the end.

[nikos59]

Is this real? Have you the results somewhere?

Can you mail them to me, I am very interested

in such cases.

 

Nikos

[helene_t]

Here in the Netherlands (NL) we play French overcall methods, that is, a response at the 1- or 3-level to an overcall is forcing. This means that overcaller's pd is more likely to pass in France (and in NL) than in the USA. For that reason, we are more reluctant to overcalling with mega-holdings than are Americans. This worsens the dilema discussed in this thread. We want to have our cake and eat it, that is, we want to be able to play forcing responses while also allowing a very broad range (5-20 HCPs or something) for overcalls.

 

The traditional solution is either a direct cuebid or a strong jump overcall, but both have gone out of fashion. Ruben Advances solve the problem in a few special cases. Also, a friend of mine plays a 1NT overcall as 17-20, the idea being that a 15-16 ballanced can often double and otherwise a pass may not be more risky than a 1NT overcall. With 4-2 in the majors and 14-16 HCPs she first doubles and then bids 1NT if pd bids one of the wrong major.

[Fluffy]

Is this real? Have you the results somewhere?

Can you mail them to me, I am very interested

in such cases.

 

Nikos

Sorry mate, they are at the local club, and the scoring paper has probably banished already.

 

But I remember, the scores were as follows:

 

+1460

+1430

+710

+710

+680

+680

+500

+100 (this 1 to 1♥X, not very good defending :) )

 

 

and a minus score I don´t remember.

[cwiggins]

Per the snippet below from http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm , Rodwell has a lower limit on his overcalls than most U.S. experts.

 

BridgeMatters: . . . [M]aking an overcall, one group believes that the overcall should be wide ranging—showing your shape first—while other people believe that at a certain upper range you should start by doubling, in a sense showing your points first, then show your shape later. Where do you sit on this?

 

Eric Rodwell: I don’t think it is practical to be overcalling 1S on 20 high, for instance. There has to be some sort of upper limit at which you start by doubling and then bidding your suit. Now, traditionally, we have been more aggressive on doing this than a lot of other players but we backed off on . . . hands that can’t handle certain major suit responses. For instance, if I’m a 1-5-3-4, I will be overcalling 1H more often over 1D than I would with a 3-5-1-4.

 

BridgeMatters: If you do double more, aren’t you worried about the opponents aggressively bouncing the bidding, leaving you pickled about unwinding the bidding later?

 

Eric Rodwell: I have to feel that my hand is good enough. For example, if I have a 3-5-1-4 and they open 1D in front of me, with most 16 counts I will just be overcalling 1H. With 17, I would want to start with double generally though most other experts would have a slightly higher standard for that. With a 1-5-3-4, I want to overcall 1H with 17 and probably start doubling with 18.

 

BridgeMatters: What is the advantage of having a lower upper range for overcalls than what experts play at the moment?

 

Eric Rodwell: The thing is, when it comes to using points as a guide in any situation, unless both hands are balanced, it is going to lead to some very incorrect conclusions. I have doubled instead of bidding my suit on hands with less than 16 if they are good distributional hands, especially if they have long spades, for instance.

 

BridgeMatters: What is the advantage of limiting the playing value of your overcall?

 

Eric Rodwell: The thing is, most everybody overcalls with light hands that are well below opening bid strength at the one level. So there is substantial risk in responding 1NT with 6 or 7 points. And responder could have had a penalty double of the overcall. You need to be passing the overcall with nondescript hands that have up to a poor 8. If you think you are running a significant risk of missing a game opposite those hands, you need to be bidding more aggressively by starting with a double. But a lot of hands with 16 high can’t make game opposite hands that can’t answer the overcall. It’s like the decision to open 2C in standard—how likely are you miss a game opposite a nondescript hand with less than 6 points that wouldn’t respond? That depends on your playing strength, your distribution, and all that. To a lesser extent, it is how easy the hand is to bid. Let’s say I have a 1-4-3-5 20 count—I am more inclined to open that hand 1C than a 5-4-3-1 20 count, where I more inclined to open 2C.